1932

Abstract

With some 108 independent genealogical units, South America is the linguistically most diverse region of our planet and presents a particular challenge to linguists seeking to understand the genealogical relationships among human languages. Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in the internal classification of South American language families, and this article provides a critical overview of research in this very active area, focusing on the seven largest language families of the continent: Arawakan, Cariban, Jê, Panoan, Quechuan, Tukanoan, and Tupian. The strengths and weaknesses of major classification proposals are examined, and directions for future research discussed. Several long-distance relationship proposals that South Americanists are actively debating, including Tupi-Cariban, Pano-Takanan, Quechumaran, TuKaJê, and Macro-Jê, are also examined.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030419
2021-01-04
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-011619-030419.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030419&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adelaar W. 1986. La relación quechua-aru: perspectivas para la separación del léxico. Rev. Andin. 4:379–426
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adelaar W. 2000. Propuesta de un nuevo vínculo genético entre dos grupos lingüísticos indígenas de la Amazonía occidental: Harakmbut y Katukina. Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica219–36 Lima, Peru: Univ. Ricardo Palmas
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Adelaar W. 2004. The Languages of the Andes New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Adelaar W. 2007. The Quechua impact in Amuesha, an Arawak language of the Peruvian Amazon. Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology A Aikhenvald, RMW Dixon 290–312 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Adelaar W. 2008. Relações externas do Macro-Jê: o caso do Chiquitano. Topicalizando Macro-Jê S Telles, AS de Paula 9–28 Recife, Braz: NECTAR
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Adelaar W. 2012a. Historical overview: descriptive and comparative research on South American Indian languages. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 1–58 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Adelaar W. 2012b. Languages of the Middle Andes in areal-typological perspective: emphasis on Quechuan and Aymaran. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide. Vol. 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 575–624 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Adelaar W. 2013. Quechua I y Quechua II: en defensa de una distinción establecida. Rev. Bras. De Linguíst. Antropol. 5:45–65
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Aikhenvald A. 1999a. The Arawak language family. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 65–106 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Aikhenvald A. 1999b. Areal diffusion and language contact in the Içana-Vaupés basin, North West Amazonia. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 385–415 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Aikhenvald A. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Aikhenvald A. 2012. The Languages of the Amazon New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Barnes J. 1999. Tucano. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 207–26 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Boswood J. 1973. Evidências para a inclusão do Aripaktsá no filo Macro-Jê. Sér. Lingüíst. 1:67–78
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brinton D. 1891. The American Race: A Linguistic Classification and Ethnographic Description of the Native Tribes of North and South America New York: N.D.C. Hodges
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Campbell L. 1995. The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica 12:157–200
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Campbell L. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Campbell L. 2012. Classification of the indigenous languages of South America. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 59–166 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Campbell L, Poser W. 2008. Language Classification: History and Method Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cerrón-Palomino R. 1987. Lingüística Quechua Cuzco, Peru: Cent. Estud. Rural. Andin. Bartolome de Las Casas
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chacon T. 2014. A revised proposal of Proto-Tukanoan consonants and Tukanoan family classification. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 80:275–322
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chacon T, List J-M. 2015. Improved computational models of sound change shed light on the history of the Tukanoan languages. J. Lang. Relatsh. 13:177–203
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chacon T, Michael L. 2018. The evolution of subject-verb agreement in Eastern Tukanoan. J. Hist. Linguist. 8:59–94
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chamberlain A. 1907. South American linguistic stocks. Congrès International des Américanistes, XVe Session187–204 Québec: Dussault & Prould
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Constenla-Umaña A. 2012. Chibchan languages. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 391–439 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Danielsen S, Dunn M, Muysken P 2011. The role of contact in the spreading of Arawak languages. Ethnicity in Ancient Amazonia: Reconstructing Past Identities from Archaeology, Linguistics, and Ethnohistory A Hornborg, J Hill 173–96 Boulder: Univ. Press Colo.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. D'Ans A-M. 1973. Estudios glotocronológicos sobre nueve hablas pano Doc. Trab. 17 Cent. Investig. Lingüíst. Apl. Lima, Peru: Univ. Nac. Mayor San Marcos
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Davis I. 1966. Comparative Jê phonology. Estud. Lingüíst. Rev. Bras. Lingüíst. Teór. Apl. 1:10–24
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Davis I. 1968. Some Macro-Jê relationships. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 34:42–47
    [Google Scholar]
  30. de la Grasserie R. 1894. Langue Puquina Leipzig, Ger: K.F. Koehler
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Deshoullière G, Utitiaj Paati S 2019. Acerca de la declaración sobre el cambio de nombre del conjunto Jívaro. J. Soc. Am. 105:167–79
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Derbyshire D. 1999. Carib. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 22–64 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Durbin M. 1977. A survey of the Carib language family. Carib-Speaking Indians: Culture and Society E Basso 23–38 Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Dunn M. 2015. Language phylogenies. The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics C Bowern, B Evans 208–29 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Emlen N. 2017. Perspectives on the Quechua–Aymara contact relationship and the lexicon and phonology of Pre-Proto-Aymara. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 83:307–40
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Emlen N, Adelaar W. 2017. Proto-Quechua and Proto-Aymara agropastoral terms. Language Dispersal Beyond Farming M Robbeets, A Savelyev 25–46 Philadelphia: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Emlen N, Dellert J. 2020. On the polymorphemic genesis of some Proto-Quechuan roots: establishing and interpreting non-random form/meaning correspondences on the basis of a cross-linguistic polysemy network. Diachronica 37:96–145
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Epps P. 2009. Language classification, language contact, and Amazonian prehistory. Lang. Linguist. Compass 3:581–606
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Epps P, Bolaños K. 2017. Reconsidering the “Makú” language family of Northwest Amazonia. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 83:467–507
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Epps P, Michael L. 2017. The areal linguistics of Amazonia. The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics R Hickey 934–63 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Eriksen L. 2011. Nature and culture in prehistoric Amazonia PhD Diss., Lund Univ Lund, Swed:.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Eriksen L, Danielsen S. 2014. The Arawakan matrix. The Native Language of South America: Origins, Development, Typology L O'Connor, P Muysken 152–76 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Facundes S, Brandão AP. 2011. Comparative Arawak linguistics: notes on reconstruction, diffusion and Amazonian prehistory. Ethnicity in Ancient Amazonia: Reconstructing Past Identities from Archaeology, Linguistics, and Ethnohistory A Hornborg, J Hill 197–210 Boulder: Univ. Press Colo.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fleck D. 2013. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers, Vol. 99: Panoan Languages and Linguistics New York: Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Galucio A, Meira S, Birchall J, Moore D, Gabas N Jr. et al. 2015. Genealogical relations and lexical distances within the Tupian linguistic family. Bol. Mus. Para. Emílio Goeldi Ciênc. Hum. 10:229–74
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Galucio A, Nogueira A. 2011. Comparative study of the Tupari branch of the Tupi family: contributions to understanding its historical development and internal classification. Memorias del V Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica1–28 Austin: Univ. Tex. Austin
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gildea S. 2003. The Venezuelan branch of the Cariban language family. Amérindia 28:7–32
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Gildea S. 2012. Linguistic studies in the Cariban family. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 441–94 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gildea S, Hoff B, Meira S 2010. The story of *ô in the Cariban family. Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis in Indigenous Languages of the Americas A Berez, D Rosenblum, J Mulder 91–123 Honolulu: Univ. Hawai'i Press
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Girard V. 1971a. Proto-Carib phonology PhD Diss., Univ. Calif Berkeley:
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Girard V. 1971b. University of California Publications in Linguistics, Vol. 70: Proto-Takanan Phonology Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Greenberg J. 1987. Language in the Americas Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Grimes B. 1985. Language attitudes: identity, distinctiveness, survival in the Vaupes. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 6:389–401
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Guillaume A. 2017. Sistemas complejos de movimiento asociado en las lenguas Takana y Pano: perspectivas descriptiva, tipológica e histórico-comparativa. Amerindia 39:211–61
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Guillaume A. Tacanan. Amazonian Languages: An International Handbook P Epps, L Michael Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Guy G. 2008. Variationist approaches to phonological change. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics B Joseph, R Janda 369–400 Malden, MA: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Haynie H, Bowern C, Epps P, Hill J, McConvell P 2014. Wanderwörter in languages of the Americas and Australia. Ampersand 1:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Heggarty P. 2005. Enigmas en el orígen de las lenguas andinas: aplicando nuevas técnicas a las incógnitas por resolver. Rev. Andin. 40:9–80
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hornborg A. 2005. Ethnogenesis, regional interaction, and ecology in prehistoric Amazonia. Curr. Anthropol. 46:589–620
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Jackson J. 1983. The Fish People: Linguistic Exogamy and Tukanoan Identity in Northwest Amazonia Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Jensen C. 1998. Comparative Tupí-Guaraní morphosyntax. Handbook of Amazonian Languages 4 D Derbyshire, G Pullum 489–618 New York: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Jolkesky M. 2010. Reconstrução fonológica e lexical do Proto-Jê Meridional MA Thesis, Univ. Estadual de Campinas, Campinas Brazil:
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kaufman T. 1990. Language history in South America: what we know and how to know more. Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages D Payne 13–67 Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kaufman T. 1994. The native languages of South America. Atlas of the World's Languages C Moseley, RE Asher 59–93 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Key MR. 1968. Comparative Tacanan Phonology: With Cavineña Phonology and Notes on Pano-Tacanan Relationship The Hague: Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Labov W. 2020. The regularity of regular sound change. Language 96:42–59
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Landerman P. 1991. Quechua dialects and their classification PhD Diss., Univ. Calif Los Angeles:
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Lemle M. 1971. Internal classification of the Tupí-Guaraní linguistic family. Tupí Studies I D Bendor-Samuel 107–29 Norman, OK: Summer Inst. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Loos E. 1999. Pano. In The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 227–49 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Malone T. 1986. Proto-Tucanoan and Tucanoan genetic relationship Work. Pap., Inst. Linguíst. Verano, Lomalinda Colombia:
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Mannheim B. 1991. The Language of the Inca since the European Invasion Austin: Univ. Texas Press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Martins A. 2011. Uma avaliação da hipótese de relações genéticas entre o Guató e o tronco Macro-Jê PhD Diss., Univ. Brasília Brasília, Braz:.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Meira S. 2000. A Reconstruction of Proto-Taranoan: Phonology and Morphology Munich: LINCOM Eur.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Meira S. 2005. Cariban languages. Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistic Theory K Brown 199–204 Oxford, UK: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Meira S, Birchall J, Chousou-Polydouri S 2015. A character-based internal classification of the Cariban family Talk presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguisticae Europaea Leiden, Neth: Sept. 4
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Meira S, Drude S. 2013. Sobre a origem histórica dos “prefixos relacionais” das línguas Tupí-Guaraní. Cad. Etnolingüíst. 5:1–31
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Meira S, Franchetto B. 2005. The southern Cariban languages and the Cariban family. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 71:127–92
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Meira S, Gildea S, Hoff B 2010. On the origin of ablaut in the Cariban family. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 76:4477–515
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Mello A. 2000. Estudo histórico da família linguística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais PhD Diss., Univ. Fed. Santa Catarina, Florianópolis Braz:.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Mello A. 2002. Evidencias fonológicas e lexicais para o sub-agrupamento interno Tupí-Guaraní. Línguas Indígenas Brasileiras: Fonologia, Gramática e História 1 AS Cabral, A Rodrigues 338–42 Belém, Braz: Editora Univ. UFPA
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Michael L, Chousou‐Polydouri N. 2019. Computational phylogenetics and the classification of South American languages. Lang. Linguist. Compass 13:e12358
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Michael L, Chousou-Polydouri N, Bartholomei K, Donnelly E, Wauters V et al. 2015. A Bayesian phylogenetic classification of Tupí-Guaraní. LIAMES 15:193–221
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Moore D, Galucio A. 1994. Reconstruction of Proto-Tupari consonants and vowels. Report 8: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages: Proceedings of the Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas M Langdon, L Hinton 119–37 Berkeley: Univ. Calif., Berkeley
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Nichols J, Peterson D. 1996. The Amerind personal pronouns. Language 72:336–71
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Nichols J, Warnow T. 2008. Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Lang. Linguist. Compass 2:760–820
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Nikulin A. 2015. On the genetic unity of Jê-Tupí-Karib MA Thesis, Lomonsonov Mosc. State Univ., Moscow Russ:.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Nikulin A. 2016. Historical phonology of Proto-Northern Jê. J. Lang. Relatsh. 14:165–85
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Nikulin A. 2017. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family). J. Lang. Relatsh. 15:147–80
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Nikulin A, da Silva M 2020. As línguas Maxakalí e Krenák dentro do tronco Macro-Jê. Cad. Etnolingüíst. 8:1–64
    [Google Scholar]
  90. O'Hagan Z, Chousou-Polydouri N, Michael L 2019. Phylogenetic classification supports a Northeastern Amazonian Proto-Tupí-Guaraní homeland. LIAMES 19:1–29
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Oliveira S. 2014. Contribuições para a reconstrução do Proto-Páno PhD Diss., Univ. Brasília, Brasília Braz:.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Orr C, Longacre R. 1968. Proto-Quechumaran. Language 44:528–55
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Pache M. 2016. Pumé (Yaruro) and Chocoan: evidence for a new genealogical link in northern South America. Lang. Dyn. Chang. 6:99–155
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Parker G. 1963. La clasificación genética de los dialectos quechuas. Rev. Mus. Nac. XXXII:241–52
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Parker G. 1969a. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar I: classification. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 1:65–87
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Parker G. 1969b. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar II: Proto-Quechua phonology and morphology. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 1:123–47
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Parker G. 1969c. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar III: Proto-Quechua lexicon. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 1:1–61
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Parker G. 1969d. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar IV: the evolution of Quechua A. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 1:2149–204
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Parker G. 1971. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar V: the evolution of Quechua B. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 3:45–109
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Payne D. 1985. The genetic classification of Resigaro. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 51:222–31
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Payne D. 1991. A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions. Handbook of Amazonian Languages 3 D Derbyshire, G Pullum 355–499 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Payne D. 2005. Apolista (Lapachu) as a Maipuran Arawakan language. Rev. Latinoam. Estud. Etnolingüíst. 10:239–50
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Pearce A, Heggarty P. 2011.. “ Mining the data” on the Huancayo-Huancavelica Quechua frontier. History and Language in the Andes P Heggarty, A Pearce 87–109 New York: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Ramirez H. 2001. Lińguas arawak da Amazônia setentrional: comparação e descrição Manaus, Braz: Editora Univ. Amazon.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Ramirez H, Vegini V, de França M 2015. Koropó, puri, kamakã e outras línguas do Leste Brasileiro. LIAMES 15:223–77
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Rankin R. 2003. The comparative method. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics B Joseph, R Janda 183–212 Malden, MA: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Ribeiro E. 2006. Macro-Jê. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics 7 K Brown 422–26 Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2nd. ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Ribeiro E. 2011. Prefixos relacionais como evidência histórico-comparativa: os casos Chiquitano e Jabutí. Línguas Cult. Macro-Jê 2:105–20
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Ribeiro E. 2012a. A grammar of Karajá PhD Diss., Univ. Chicago Chicago, IL:
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Ribeiro E. 2012b. Final consonants in Maxakalí and their comparative status. LIAMES 12:189–93
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Ribeiro E, van der Voort H 2010. Nimuendajú was right: the inclusion of the Jabutí language family in the Macro-Jê stock. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 76:517–70
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Ribeiro L. 2006. Uma proposta de classificação interna das línguas da família Pano. Rev. Investig. 19:157–88
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Rodrigues A 1984–1985. Relações internas na família lingüística tupí-guaraní. Rev. Antropol. 27/28:33–53
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Rodrigues A. 1985. Evidence for Tupi-Carib relationships. South American Indian Languages: Retrospect and Prospect HE Manelis Klein, LR Stark 371–404 Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Rodrigues A. 1986. Línguas brasileiras: para o conhecimento das línguas indígenas São Paulo, Braz: Loyola
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Rodrigues A. 1999. Macro-Jê. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 165–206 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Rodrigues A. 2005. As vogais orais do Proto-Tupí. Novos Estudos Sobre Línguas Indígenas A Rodrigues, AS Cabral 35–46 Brasília, Braz: Editora Univ. Brasilia
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Rodrigues A. 2007. As consoantes do Proto-Tupí. Línguas e Culturas Tupi AS Cabral, A Rodrigues 167–203 Campinas, Braz./Brasília, Braz: Curt Nimuendaju/LALI
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Rodrigues A. 2009. A case of affinity among Tupí, Karíb, and Macro-Jê. Rev. Bras. Linguíst. Antropol. 1:137–62
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Rodrigues A, Cabral AS. 2002. Revendo a classificação interna da família tupí-guaraní. Línguas Indígenas Brasileiras: Fonologia, Gramática e História AS Cabral, A Rodrigues 327–37 Belém, Braz: Editora Univ. UFPA
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Rodrigues A, Cabral AS. 2012. Tupían. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 495–574 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Santana Á 2006. Comparações preliminares entre a língua Chiquitano (Brasil/Bolívia) e o Proto-Jê Paper presented at the Symposium “Advances in Native South American Historical Linguistics” at the Fifty-Second International Congress of Americanists, Seville Spain:
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Santos-Granero F. 2002. The Arawakan matrix: ethos, language, and history in native South America. Comparative Arawakan Histories: Rethinking Language Family and Culture Area in Amazonia J Hill, F Santos-Granero 25–50 Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Schleicher C. 1998. Comparative and internal reconstruction of the Tupi-Guarani language family PhD Diss., Univ. Wis Madison:
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Seifart F, Echeverri JA. 2015. Proto Bora-Muinane. LIAMES 15:279–311
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Seifart F, Hammarström H. 2017. Language isolates in South America. Language Isolates L Campbell 260–86 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Seki L. 2002. O Krenak (Botocudo/Borum) e as línguas Jê. Línguas Je: Estudos Vários L dos Santos, I Pontes 15–40 Londrina, Braz: Editora UEL
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Shell O. 1965. Pano reconstruction PhD Diss., Univ. Pa Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Sorensen A. 1967. Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. Am. Anthropol. 69:670–84
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Stark T. 2018. Caribbean Northern Arawak person marking and alignment: a comparative and diachronic analysis PhD Diss., Univ. Calif Berkeley:
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Stenzel K. 2005. Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon, revisited. Memorias del Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica–II1–28 Austin: Univ. Tex. Austin
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Torero A. 1964. Los dialectos quechuas. An. Cient. Univ. Agrar. 2:446–78
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Torero A. 1968. Procedencia geográfica de los dialectos quechuas de Ferreñafe y Cajamarca. An. Cient. Univ. Agrar. 3–4:291–316
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Torero A. 1970. Lingüística e historia de la sociedad andina. An. Cient. Univ. Agrar. 8:231–64
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Torero A. 1983. La familia lingüística quechua. América Latina en sus Lenguas Indígenas B Pottier 61–92 Caracas, Venezuela: Monte Avila Editores
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Valenzuela P. 2017. Armonía transitiva en las lenguas Pano y Takana. Amerindia 39:407–51
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Valenzuela P, Guillaume A 2017. Estudios sincrónicos y diacrónicos sobre lenguas Pano y Takana: una introducción. Amerindia 39:1–49
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Walker R, Ribeiro L. 2011. Bayesian phylogeography of the Arawak expansion in lowland South America. Proc. R. Soc. B 278:2562–67
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Waltz N, Wheeler A. 1972. Proto Tucanoan. In Comparative Studies in Amerindian Language E Matteson, A Wheeler, F Jackson, N Waltz, D Christian 119–49 The Hague: Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Wise MR. 1976. Apuntes sobre la influencia Inca entre los amuesha: factor que oscurece la clasificación del idioma. Rev. Mus. Nac. XLII:355–66
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Zamponi R. 2017. First-person n and second-person m in Native America: a fresh look. Ital. J. Linguist. 29:189–230
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Zariquiey R. 2017. Construcciones ditransitivas en Pano (y Takana): una aproximación basada en propiedades. Amerindia 29:295–322
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030419
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error